. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/VAL/W/193 
21 May 2010 
 
 (10-2866) 
Committee on Customs Valuation Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CUSTOMS  
VALUATION AGREEMENT 
 
Questions from the United States to Cambodia
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 20 May 201 0, is circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
 
  The United States would like to thank Cambodi a for notifying the Committee of its customs 
valuation legislation, contained in G/VAL/N/1/KHM/ 1.  Upon review of the legislation, the United 
States kindly requests the following information:    
1. Article 18 of the Customs Law makes two refe rences to complying "with the provisions of 
Article 51 and Article 53 of this Law."  However,  since these provisions are not included in the 
document, it is unclear what the reference pert ains to.  We request that Cambodia provide both 
provisions to the Committee.   
2. Additionally, we would request an explana tion regarding the intent or meaning of the 
provision contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of  Article 18 of the Customs Law, which reads: "When 
an audit, investigation, inspection or examination undertaken under this Article finds any fraudulent 
activity, a notice may be issued for the goods under investigation within a period no longer than 
10 years from the original date of regist ration of the customs declaration."  Is this a penalty 
provision?   
 
3. With regards to the Prakas on Customs Valu ation of Imported Goods , we have concerns 
regarding the wording of the definitions of "ide ntical goods" and "similar goods."  Specifically, we 
are concerned about provision (c) of both definitions.    
(a) We believe that the phrase "on behalf of" shoul d be deleted from this provision.  Article 15 of 
the WTO Valuation Agreement allows for goods produced by a different person to be taken 
into account only when there are no identical goods or similar goods produced by the same 
person as the goods being valued.  However, including the phrase "on behalf of the person 
who" allows for someone other than the pe rson who produced the goods being valued to 
produce the goods considered to be identical or similar.    
 
(b) Additionally, we are concerned that the curre nt definition does not allow for the consideration 
of goods produced by a person not related to the producer of the goods being valued in 
situations where no identical or similar goods are produced by the same person as the good 
being valued.  Can Cambodia please indicate if Ar ticle 15.2(e) is included elsewhere in its 
legislation? 
 G/VAL/W/193 
Page 2  
 
  4. We would also appreciate an explanation on the meaning of Prakas 31(e) and the reason that 
the phrase "unless the goods were imported into  Cambodia" was added to the provision.  
 
5. We are very concerned about the language c ontained in Prakas 32, which would appear to 
allow for different valuation treatment of certain goods which Customs considers as sensitive or high 
risk goods.  This Prakas seems to allow the Custom s and Excise Department to decide which goods to 
refrain from applying the new valuation rules to , provided the Ministry of Economy and Finance 
agrees.  We request an explanation of this pr ovision and under what circumstances it would be 
utilized.  
6. Finally, we encourage Cambodia to also s ubmit its responses to the Checklist of Issues.  
  
__________